Like there's a lot they were not especially clear about, and all sorts of reasons where we shouldn't tie our own future to their past. But "Kings are bad; the President is not a King; he must be constrained by law" is one of the few things they were, to their credit, very clear about
And all this in the context where the prior (at least) 5 centuries of British history can roughly be understood as a struggle to put constraints and accountability on the throne.
And describing this as “making the president a king” and “we fought a war about this” is itself wrong, because the England we broke away from had already established that the *king* is not above the law! They fought a whole war about it 150 years earlier!